Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

[tpaine]

People of states, cities, and or counties can prohibit that which is not guaranteed by the BoR and is viewed as a threat (i.e. violation of others rights).
556 Texaggie79

Life, liberty, and property are among the rights guaranteed, aggie. The type of property is not enumerated. See the 9th.

And, we have already disposed of your inability to discern a valid threat from your own fantasies.
557 tpaine


Therefore, you possess the constitutional right to own a vile of small pox in your home?
558 -aggie-

Sigh, -- a valid 'threat' redux, - for the umteenth time, aggie. Get a clue.

-- A vial of 'pox' is a very dangerous substance, the storage of which can be reasonably 'regulated' by the state.
- A vial of some mind altering recreational substance is not a threat to your neighbors, or a "violation of their rights".
I have quite a few such 'vials' displayed in my home, on the backbar.

[tpaine]

I think I may have made a mistake,
also.

[Texaggie79]

A vial of some mind altering recreational substance is not a threat to your neighbors, or a "violation of their rights".

So tpaine gets to decide for the rest of us, what is a real threat and what is not?

[tpaine]

People of states, cities, and or counties can prohibit that which is not guaranteed by the BoR and is viewed as a threat (i.e. violation of others rights).
556 Texaggie79

Life, liberty, and property are among the rights guaranteed, aggie. The type of property is not enumerated. See the 9th.

And, we have already disposed of your inability to discern a valid threat from your own fantasies.
557 tpaine


Therefore, you possess the constitutional right to own a vile of small pox in your home?
558 -aggie-

Sigh, -- a valid 'threat' redux, - for the umteenth time, aggie. Get a clue.

-- A vial of 'pox' is a very dangerous substance, the storage of which can be reasonably 'regulated' by the state.
- A vial of some mind altering recreational substance is not a threat to your neighbors, or a "violation of their rights".
I have quite a few such 'vials' displayed in my home, on the backbar.
561

So tpaine gets to decide for the rest of us, what is a real threat and what is not?
-aggie-

Nope, a jury of our peers make such decisions, my boy, after seeing reasonable cause of a 'threat' demonstrated in our courts.
-- Really aggie, -- shouldn't you start learning to use your mind before inserting foot in mouth?

[Texaggie79]

Nope, a jury of our peers make such decisions, my boy, after seeing reasonable cause of a 'threat' demonstrated in our courts.

Oh! I see. So, anyone can get a vile of small pox and do what they wish with it. Their neighbors cant do anything about it but take them to court?

[tpaine]

Oviously, either you are unable to 'see', and never will be smart enough to do so, - or - you think you're playing some witty word game. You may be half right.

Bug off aggie, and grow up.

[Texaggie79]

tpaine, all you simply must do is put 2 and 2 together. It's hilarious how you see no problem with regulation and prohibition of what YOU see as a threat, yet, somehow, think that your opinions on what is a true threat and what is not is some kind of world wide axiom.

[tpaine]

tpaine, all you simply must do is put 2 and 2 together. It's hilarious how you see no problem with regulation and prohibition of what YOU see as a threat,

No, its hilarious that you think I favor unconstitutional 'prohibition' as reasonable regulation. Apparently you can't 'add' at all.

yet, somehow, think that your opinions on what is a true threat and what is not is some kind of world wide axiom.

Feeble 'tar baby' reply, aggie.
My 'opinions' on what constitute criminal threats are based on historical common law, and you have no factual basis to conclude otherwise.
-- You however, have admitted on this thread that you sometimes feel your neighbors threaten you. - Get a grip, -- you have branded yourself as an emotional cry baby.

[Texaggie79]

historical common law tells us that witchcraft can be a threat, meriting prohibition. You have no base to stand on, but of those lies you spout about the USC.

As Rush Limbaugh stated last week, laws must be based in morality or society cannot be cohesive.

[tpaine]

Dream your dreams of witchcraft, with 'rush' as your authority on law, aggie.

I need but rest my case.

[Texaggie79]

I base my stance more on our founders, from which, you stray. Anarchy, is not 4 me.

[tpaine]

I 'stray' from founding principles? Daft. -- How so?

You can't make that point with logic.

[First Amendment]

I am sorry I have not been able to commece with our discussion - had some health issues which are requiring my attention but I should be up and at'em in the next day or so....

[robertpaulsen]

"Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce not to stop it."

Actually, Article I, Section 8, says (in part), "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;".

Certainly, Congress has the power to prohibit commerce with certain countries, or to prohibit the commerce of specific products with other countries.

If Aticle I, Section 8 gives them the power to stop commerce with other countries, it gives them the power to stop commerce "among the several States" or "with the Indian tribes", doesn't it?

[tpaine]

A tall man in a cowboy hat:
"Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce not to stop it."

Actually, Article I, Section 8, says (in part), "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;". Certainly, Congress has the power to prohibit commerce with certain countries, or to prohibit the commerce of specific products with other countries.

If used under their powers to "provide for the common defense", emergency prohibitions on commerce ~could arguably~ be justified. But bans hardly qualify as a method of peaceful 'regulation'.
I doubt the goverment was granted this much power over our rights to trade in property.

If Aticle I, Section 8 gives them the power to stop commerce with other countries, it gives them the power to stop commerce "among the several States" or "with the Indian tribes", doesn't it?

Big 'IF', and I would say that our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property pretty well cover the right to engage in commerce without unreasonable regulations.
Prohibitional decrees 'stopping' commerce, and 'banning' possession of goods are unreasonable violations of such rights on quite a number of constitutional grounds.

[Joe Brower]

An oldie but goodie, and worthy of close study.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Yes, it is. It saddens me that many of the people here at FR will proudly calim their support for freedom in one thread and in the next they will talk about how the government needs MORE power to fight the WOD.

[t_skoz]

Bump To The Top!!!!!!!!

[clamper1797]

There's a lot of my old friends on this one .... some banned ... some not